Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the ranking member is not here. I am sure if he was, he would ask that we have a rollcall vote. We ought to. Let me just say, I don't think there is any question that we have to move forward and have an opportunity to debate this in a much more meaningful and thorough way. The way we will do that is through a markup in the Appropriations Committee and through votes on the Senate floor. Throughout the day the majority leader and I have been trying to figure out a way to work through the schedule, and it is obvious there are differences of opinion about what the schedule should entail. Yes, there should be more hearings. Yes, there ought to be more accountability as to how we make these decisions. If we had our choice, we would bifurcate this request, send the money to the troops to make sure they get all they need to conduct their responsibilities, but then have a more deliberate and thoughtful debate about this aid for reconstruction. That would be our desire. We will have amendments in that regard whenever the bill comes to the floor. We need to get on with the vote on the judge, and then we will talk further about schedule as the schedule presents itself.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. President. I will use my leader time this morning so as not to take away from the allocated time in morning business for the Democratic caucus. I wanted to come to the floor this morning to respond perhaps in part to the comments made by our distinguished colleagues. I will start by emphasizing that there are many areas for which there is absolutely no disagreement. I don't think you will find any disagreement in the Senate today that it was a good thing that Saddam Hussein was removed from power. We acknowledge that it was a good thing. Saddam Hussein posed serious threat to the region, to his country, and to the United States. His absence is a positive development. There is also broad recognition that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to our troops and to the military overall for the extraordinary challenge they face and the success with which they face it. Let us also recognize that there is little disagreement that it is important to Iraq and this country that we allow for the reconstruction of Iraq. I think many of us are very concerned. This is where some of the disagreement and differences may begin to arise about the extraordinary lack of planning that went into the reconstruction effort. Some have suggested that we planned for months--maybe years-- for the military effort, and it shows. It was a great success. I have been told--and I will not say that this is confirmed, but I have been told--that we planned for less than a month on efforts to reconstruct Iraq. That also shows, if that is true. I think it is a fact that reconstruction has certainly not met with the same success and with the same degree of support within our own country that the military effort itself has. That is where we come to our point of disagreement. I regret that the President lost the opportunity that he had yesterday in making his presentation to the United Nations. He lost an opportunity to make the case for broader involvement in the world community. He didn't ask for more troops. For whatever reason, he didn't ask for more resources. He failed to build the broad coalition that will be required if ever we are successful in the future reconstruction of Iraq. There is no disagreement whatsoever that it is in our interest to find ways to engage the world community more effectively and to make a better effort at public relations required to do it successfully in Iraq. There is a front-page story in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader this morning about an Iraqi businessman from Sioux Falls who, months ago, left Sioux Falls to work in his hometown in Iraq as they began to rebuild. He became very involved in the creation of a new government. He was an ardent opponent to Saddam Hussein. He commented this morning that he comes back with grave regret about what he has seen. He said that, unfortunately, more and more Iraqis are losing their confidence and trust in the reconstruction effort; that more and more we are losing the public relations battle. While we all want to find a way to ensure that we are successful, it would be wrong for us to bury our heads in the sand, to plow forward, to salute the flag, and say: Look, everything is just great. All we need is more money. We can't do that. We have to make an honest assessment of our circumstances, acknowledge that there is work to be done, and be honest with ourselves and the world community on how we accomplish all that we have set out to do. To do it successfully requires candor first and honesty second. Unfortunately, we have not seen enough of that today. We are being told that we are going to rush through this request for resources, $87 billion--a couple of days of hearings, a quick markup, a couple of days of floor debate and, bang, it is done. I have to say that isn't going to happen. We have to be deliberative. As the Senator from Kentucky suggested, we have to consider alternatives, offer amendments, have a good debate, and make sure this $87 billion was committed appropriately. I say that the President missed his chance to speak candidly yesterday. I would have hoped that he could have laid out a plan, and that he could have been very specific with regard to how we more effectively put this coalition together. We hear so much discussion about the involvement of other communities. We are told that we would expect the world community to produce about $55 billion in resources to match the $87 billion requested by the President by the United States. Yet, again, yesterday Ambassador Bremer had to acknowledge that out of that $55 billion expectation, the world community has only provided $1.5 billion. I would have hoped the President could have been more specific with regard to our plan for troops. What will they be doing? How long will they be there? To what extent will we have to keep them there, and for how long? Over the course of the next couple of weeks, it would be my hope that the President could come to the Congress with very specific requests with regard to that $87 billion and with regard to the resources he says he needs. I hope he could lay out with some specificity what his plan is for the reconstruction of Iraq. We were told by Ambassador Bremer yesterday that the $20 billion over and above the $65 billion request for our troops is the last, final installment. There will be no more additional requests for Iraq from here on out. I wish I could believe that. I wish I knew they had that level of confidence that not one dollar more would be requested. I wish I could better understand their opposition to a proposal made by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and others who have suggested we collateralize the oil revenues in Iraq for the next 20 years. We are told that could be upwards of $160 billion. Collateralized through an IMF loan may not necessitate the need for $20 billion or $30 billion on the part of the United States. They may have the second most formidable oil supply in the world. Why we would not collateralize and find ways with which to utilize the resources available to them is something the administration needs to more thoroughly explain.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge to the Senator from Nevada, that is what we are now being told. I was going to address that in a moment, but the Senator is absolutely right. We have been forced to address the debt ceiling this year for the second time. We will be called upon within this Congress now to address it the third time. We are told by CBO that we could see in excess of $6,000 billion of debt by the end of this decade. Some have suggested that if all of the tax cuts that are now scheduled to be implemented go into effect, that number would reach $10,000 billion by the end of this decade. The CBO, in a very rare moment, in my view--we do not often hear them editorializing on things of this matter; they usually give us the fact and leave it at that--used the word ``unsustainable.'' That $10,000 billion, even $6,000 billion, of debt is unsustainable. The American people have said, if we are going to be mired in unsustainable debt, somebody better start asking questions about whether this $87 billion or the $22 billion for reconstruction, or whatever other additional expenditures, will not so seriously undermine the investments in our own country--education, health, and social security--it could be one of the most damaging things to our own security, ironically, that we could be considering.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, the Senator in his question makes a very important point. We talked about international involvement. I call it more cosmetic than real. As he has noted, there has been minimal involvement in a broad coalition of countries that oftentimes are considered Third World, countries that economically, militarily, do not have the weight and the breadth and depth of power and potential that countries that are traditional allies of the United States have always had. For whatever reason, we cannot involve Europe, we have not involved Russia, we have not involved China, we have not involved India, we have not involved countries in a meaningful, substantive, and consequential way. As a result, as the Senator has noted, the lion's share--over 90 percent of the responsibility financially, militarily, organizationally--has fallen upon the United States. I talked to a young woman in Brookings, SD, on Saturday. She told me she is leaving for Iraq within the month, that she was going to be gone anywhere from 8 to 13 months. She has a family, a job, and she is prepared to do that as a member of the National Guard. She has the right to be very proud of the extraordinary contribution our members of the Guard have made, but they and we have a right to ask, Where is the help from others? Where are the Europeans? Where are the Chinese? Where are the Russians? Where are the Japanese? Why is it that we are asking that young woman to provide 90 percent of the sacrifice? Where is the sacrifice even in this country among some? Those at the top, the top 1 percent, who will be getting an average of $283,000 in a tax break this year, where is the sacrifice? Should they not be required to help share the burden of paying for the war, if nothing else? Every single dollar we will be considering next week, every single dollar, will be borrowed. We were told yesterday in the New York Times that every dollar we borrow costs $3.60 to pay back--not over 10 years but over 6 years. So one could say that this is not an $87 billion cost to the Treasury; it is more like $300 billion because that is what it will take to pay back over a 6-year period of time alone. That is why I say it is very important we ask these questions; that the President come forth with greater clarity and far more substance with regard to his specific plans on how this money is going to be used and with far more transparency. Some generals recently noted that we have no appreciation, no real understanding of where this money is going now. We spend $1 billion a week and no one can tell us on what with any clarity. We know some goes to troops; we know some goes for reconstruction. We do not know how fast it is being spent down or where the money is going with regard to payment for other countries for their involvement, nor do we know what kind of profiteering is going on. There was a report in the New York Daily News yesterday that Halliburton could generate more than $7 billion in one contract right now--that is billion, with a B, $7 billion. Should there be more competitive bidding and transparency with regard to the contracts? Of course there should. We will continue to persist with our questions. We will offer amendments. We look forward to the debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, if I could answer the Senator from Vermont, we have 20 minutes now. The Republicans have 10 minutes. We will allocate that time as if in morning business. I would be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from Vermont for his comments. I think I will simply add that the vast majority of the American people agree with him. I appreciate very much his contribution to this discussion. Teddy Roosevelt once said: To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but it is also morally treasonable to the American public. There has to be open dialog, candid discussion about the extraordinary ramifications of many of the issues that are confronting us relating to Iraq, or we will be morally treasonable. The President has requested an additional $87 billion in money for Iraq over the next several months. Requesting the money is no substitute for a plan, and the President has no plan. In fact, we don't know where the money has gone so far. There is little accounting of the billion dollars a week that we are currently sending to Iraq--$1 billion a week, with very little if any transparency with regard to that commitment. Now the President is saying he wants $87 billion more. General Anthony Zinni recently spoke to a group of Marine officers, and here is what he said: [Our troops] should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are. And remember, every one of those young men and women that don't come back is not a personal tragedy, it's a national tragedy. You cannot say it any more powerfully than that. That was not some politician. That wasn't one of our elected Senators. That was General Anthony Zinni, who knows a great deal about sacrifice and about what it is to go into circumstances like this without a plan. So I think it is incumbent upon us to ask the questions: Where is the plan? What will it cost? Why can't we get better international support? How long will our troops be there? When will they come back? What level of cooperation are we getting from the Iraqis themselves? If you read the papers in the last couple of days, we are not even getting full support from the Iraqi Council. I think it is critical, especially in these days before the supplemental is brought before the Senate floor, that the level of debate, the questions that we have a right to ask, are asked and answers are given. Where is the sacrifice, you might ask, when the average tax cut for those at the top 1 percent is $238,000 this year? Where is the sacrifice for those who benefit the most? We are asking a lot of sacrifice from our soldiers. We are asking a lot of sacrifice for those veterans who come back. Then we tell them we are not going to give them the full measure of support in the budget for the health care needs they have once they are here? You see the bumper stickers: ``Support Our Troops.'' What happened to our veterans? Why don't we see the same bumper stickers with some advocacy, some recognition of the need to support our veterans, too? But it is not in the administration's budget. We are told we can't afford it. We are told they have to just suck it up and sacrifice. The sacrifice is not being borne equally, and that is what many of us have been asking a long time--why not? Why not? So I look forward to the coming days where we can have an all-out debate. Many of us will be presenting alternatives, amendments to this request by the President. We will have more debate about that matter. I know there are other Senators who wish to be recognized and to speak in the time that we have remaining. I yield such time as he may wish to the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we are still negotiating with regard to the schedule for the course of the next hour or so. We will ask for some additional time to respond to this attack on Senator Kennedy. I believe this is getting to be a real practice here. I was the brunt of similar criticism last spring. It seems as if anyone who comes to the floor to express concern or to express his or her views on Iraq is now the subject of attack. Regardless of one's views, to impugn someone's patriotism, to question the motives, to challenge the integrity is wrong. We ought to have an opportunity to have an open, candid expression of views without challenging----

Mr. DASCHLE. I am going to finish my statement and I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah. We ought to have an opportunity to have this open discussion and expression of views without challenging the motives, the patriotism, or the very right of any Senator to express him or herself. Senator Kennedy did that. Many of us have done that now over the course of the debate. We may ultimately come to different conclusions about what the facts are or about the specific policies involving Iraq or our involvement in the questions we are facing right now with regard to the $87 billion. But I must say, let's keep this an open and fair discussion of the facts, without always impugning someone's integrity or personal motivation. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah. I am told we only have a couple minutes left. Until we reach agreement, I will yield at this time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was not on the floor when the distinguished Senator from Utah spoke. I am relating not necessarily to his comments specifically but to this general approach Members on the other side seem to use any time one of those in the Democratic caucus speaks out, expresses him or herself, raises concerns or in some way criticizes this administration with regard to its policy in Iraq. There is an orchestrated effort to attack those who criticize. I am not saying that the Senator from Utah may have done so specifically on the floor this morning. I will look forward to reading his comments. But that is the approach. I think it is unfair. I think it is unfortunate. It demeans the debate that we ought to be having in the Senate about these important issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order, and I believe my amendment is pending.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to speak to this amendment a couple of times, so I will not belabor it. I know we are getting close to the end of the debate. I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill and ranking member for a job well done on the bill. This amendment recognizes two things. It recognizes, first, when it comes to trust responsibility and the very vexing problems we have had in carrying out trust responsibility with all Indian tribes, that we are a long way from any implementation of that responsibility today. What efforts have been made in trying to establish some mechanism for carrying out those responsibilities in a fair and meaningful way are yet to be found. In fact, if anything, we are mired more than we have been in a long time. There is a need to create a better partnership with all tribal governments, and, as a result of that need for greater partnership, a recognition that until we have meaningful trust responsibility in policy and in law, to put an infrastructure in place which is supposedly designed to implement a policy that doesn't exist is premature. In fact, it sends all the wrong messages about what the intention of the BIA, the Congress, or this administration is with regard to that responsibility in the first place. The National Congress of American Indians has written to Congress asking Congress not to fund the implementation of the policy today because it is premature. Virtually every national Indian organization has pleaded with the Congress to recognize the importance of tribal sovereignty and tribal partnership with their government and has asked us not to implement the policy. That is the first point I would make with this amendment. The second point is equally as important. We have, as I said this morning, an extraordinary deficiency in health care. We are underfunded by about $2.9 billion in health care funding on reservations today, with regard to IHS clinical services alone. As a result of that underfunding, the per capita commitment to Indian health care today is about $1,900. That is half of what our per capita commitment is today for Federal prisoners' health care. In other words, an Indian child on a reservation gets half the commitment through the Federal Government that a prisoner does regardless of that prisoner's crime in the Federal system today. What I simply am proposing with this amendment is that we take part of the money allocated for the implementation of this trust responsibility effort that is now underway in the BIA and shift it over to where it can do the most good; that is, in health care. We need every dollar we can get in health care, and $79 million--which is what this amendment provides--will go at least a little ways. Since we weren't able to pass the amendment offering $292 million for IHS clinical services, $79 million transferred to Indian health care from the trust fund budget that is within the BIA would at least send the right message to NCAI and to all of the Native American organizations that we listen, that we understand, and that this is important to us as well. Some will argue that to do so would actually prevent us from cutting checks to allottees. If this bill were enacted today, the Office of Special Trustee would receive $143 million, the same as last year. So we would have the same amount of money for allottees through the Office of Special Trustee that we had in the last fiscal year. The system that cuts the checks--the Trust Fund Accounting System--would not be affected. That costs approximately $14 million. According to the President's budget request, my amendment would still allow $32 million in the Operation and Support Account. In the Operation and Support Account we strike $20 million. We leave $32 million. There is a $6 million reduction in the trust accountability account. We leave $51 million. We take $15 million from field operations and still leave $24 million. We take $38 million from the historical accounting fund and we still leave $27 million. The total amount available for the Office of Special Trustee under this amendment is $143 million. This is our last opportunity on this bill to do something worthwhile, to recognize we have failed to meet our obligations in addressing the crisis we have in health care on reservations in the country today and to recognize, as well, the Office of the Special Trustee, as we consider our challenges as well as our responsibilities in carrying out the intent and the spirit of the treaty obligations we have not met and that will not be met under this bill. Let's use this money where it can do the most good. Let's shift it out of the Office of Special Trustee and into health care. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle could support this amendment. Mr. President, the United States of America has been struggling to strike the correct Indian policy for literally 200 years. Since the days of the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark exploration, we have attempted to find a policy that was both fair to Native people and yet, at the same time, allowed for the expansion and progress of the United States. That search continues today. From the treaties of the mid-1800s, to the Dawes Act of 1887, which sought to break up tribal land, to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which sought to undo the damage of the Dawes Act, the United States has vacillated on Indian policy. From a policy of termination to the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, we have struggled. In more recent times, through several administrations of both parties, the United States has been committed to honoring its treaty obligations and interacting with Indian tribes on a government- to-government basis. Through a government-to-government policy, our goal is to respect the integrity of tribal governments and allow them to function with greater autonomy. Tribal governments are administering more and more programs and are being looked to for the provision of local services. President Bush, discussing his administration's policy on Indian affairs had this to say: To enhance our efforts to help Indian nations be self- governing, self-supporting, and self-reliant, my Administration will continue to honor tribal sovereignty by working on a government-to-government basis with American Indians and Alaska Natives. We will honor the rights of Indian tribes and work to protect and enhance tribal resources. With that background in mind, the question before the Senate is whether or not we should appropriate money to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs when the reorganization plan put forward by the Department of Interior is opposed by Indian tribes all across the country. I think that the answer is clearly ``no.'' What does the phrase ``government-to-government'' mean if we are going to ignore the opinion of tribal leaders on a question of unique importance to Indian people? What does it say if we pay no heed to tribal leaders on how to organize the Bureau of Indian Affairs? I ask my colleagues who have an Indian reservation in their State, how many of you have said you are committed to government-to-government relations between the United States and Indian tribes? The tribal Chairs in South Dakota are against the proposed BIA reorganization plan. The senior Chairman in South Dakota, Chairman Mike Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been a national leader on this subject. The National Congress of American Indians has written to Congress asking us not to fund the reorganization. If a government-to- government policy means anything, then Congress should respect these tribal leaders, not fund the reorganization, and transfer the proposed funding to higher priorities, health care first and foremost. I am therefore proposing that we transfer $79 million from accounts that would fund a reorganization of the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to increase funding for Indian health programs. The health care statistics on the reservations of South Dakota, and throughout the country, are closer to the statistics of the developing Third World than they are to the national statistics for the United States. Infant mortality and diabetes rates on the reservations far exceed that of the rest of the Nation; every health barometer calls out for prompt intervention and assistance. There is little disagreement that the Department's stewardship of Indian trust funds has been a colossal and longstanding failure. For over 100 years, the Department of Interior has served as the trustee for the proceeds from the leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights on Indian land. Many billions of dollars are at stake. Money that is desperately needed to address basic human needs cannot be accounted for and distributed. But rather than get directly at the underlying problem, the Department continues to focus on reorganization in order to demonstrate to the tribes, Congress, and the Court that something is happening and that progress is being made. The money in the trust fund belongs to the tribes and its enrolled members. Congress should not appropriate one more dollar for reorganization of the BIA until the tribes tell us they support the reorganization plan and, most importantly, that the reorganization plan will adequately address the mismanagement of the trust fund.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have great admiration and respect for the Senator from Montana. I ask him, if it is the right thing to do, why did we exempt the tribes from Montana from this very provision, this very requirement? Section 134 of the bill exempts certain tribes. All of those tribes in Montana are exempt. We are simply saying, if the exemption is good enough for Montana, it ought to be good enough for the rest of the country, as well. I start with that. It cannot be too good or we would include Montana. But we do not. That is an issue that ought to be clarified. I also simply say, if it is true these allottees are not going to receive income as a result of the passage of this amendment, how is it possible that virtually every tribal leader in the country, virtually every Indian organization in the country, has expressed support for the amendment? Would they not be concerned for the allottees? Would they not be concerned about the economic impact this would have? The fact is, they support the amendment. The fact is, they know we have money in this bill with this amendment that allows at least some of these responsibilities to be carried forward. Why would we ever implement a bureaucratic response to a policy that is yet to be written, that is yet to be confirmed and acknowledged and authorized by the courts? Why would we put the organization in place before we know what the responsibilities are? That is what we ask with this amendment. We have debated it now on several occasions. I am not going to convince the Senator from Montana, even though he looks out for his State, and I don't blame him for doing so. I want the same opportunity to look out for the rest of the country and my State, as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Interior Appropriations bill includes funding for the United States Geological Survey, USGS, to conduct land remote sensing. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues from Montana and North Dakota regarding this funding in the Interior Appropriations bill. It is my understanding that a significant portion of the USGS mapping program budget comes from the sale of data collected from the Landsat 7 satellite. Over the past several months, that satellite has been experiencing problems that will severely hamper its ability to collect scientifically-useful data. Just last week, USGS determined that the problem affecting the Landsat 7 satellite is permanent. While the USGS is working to develop a long-term solution to address this situation, it is clear that USGS will not be collecting the full amount of income from data sales originally planned for when the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out the Interior Appropriations bill. As a result, USGS will not be able to operate in accordance with the budget on which this will is based. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Montana and the Senator from North Dakota if the Interior Subcommittee is aware of this problem and willing to work with the United States Geological Survey to address this issue during the conference with the House?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana and the Senator from North Dakota for their cooperation and their clarification regarding this matter. national zoo

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will take 5 minutes to talk briefly about this amendment. I have had an opportunity to come to the floor on a couple of occasions. Basically this comes down to whether or not we mean it when we say we will provide meaningful health care to our Native American population. That is what we are talking about today. Unfortunately, as most people know, we are far from that promise. It would take about $5 billion for us to fulfill the promise and to live up to the expectations on the reservations that we see with health care delivery in the rest of the country--$5 billion for the IHS clinical services account. This year's budget is $1.9 billion--less than half of what it would take to meet that obligation. As a result, today there is severe rationing of health care on every reservation--rationing so severe that they call it the ``life or limb'' test. Unless your life or limb is in jeopardy, you often do not get care on a reservation today. This chart shows as clearly as anything can just what the commitment made to the Native American people is today when it comes to health care. We spend about $5,915 per capita on Medicare. We spend about $5,200 per capita within the VA. We spend about $5,000 per capita in our population generally for health care. We spend about $3,800 per capita for every Federal prisoner--$3,800 a year goes to our Federal prisons on a per capita basis for health care alone. We spend $1,900 for Indian children and their families, in spite of commitments we have made for four generations. What this amendment does is very simple. Last spring, when we had this debate and when we offered the amendment to the budget resolution to make whole the Indian health care budget, it was defeated. We proposed that we try to level the playing field. That was defeated. What the Senate agreed to, reluctantly on my part, but agreed to nonetheless, was $292 million, one-tenth of the amount required to make the IHS clinical services budget whole, to provide some parity between Indian health and prison health. That was incorporated in the Senate version of the budget. Now we are simply saying: Let's live up to what the Senate said we would do on Indian health this year during the budget debate. Let's provide that $292 million, one-tenth of the amount required, if we are going to do this right. For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone could vote against this, knowing, as we do, we are giving one-half the amount of money to Indian children as we are to Federal prisoners. We are giving a fraction to the Native-American population that we give to Medicare beneficiaries. This amendment simply acknowledges our need to rectify that extraordinary disparity, to deal with it in a way that only we can, to say it is not enough just to talk about it, not enough just to lament it, we have to do something about it. Granted, $292 million is a far cry from what is required, but at least it is what the Senate said we would do last spring. It is now time to put our money where our mouth was last spring. This amendment is intended to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator yields the floor, I will be recognized for what remaining time I have. This amendment is not offset. Yes, we are told we cannot afford $292 million. We need $2.9 billion. We are told we cannot afford that. I hope someone will come to the floor next week or the week after on the other side and say we cannot afford $87 billion for Iraq, then, either. If we cannot afford $292 million for our Native-American population, who are experiencing life or limb tests, then I sure hope we will not hear the argument on the other side that somehow we can afford providing health care dollars to the Iraqi children. I bet that is exactly what we are going to hear--$87 billion worth of requests. It is a double standard. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to waive the relevant portions of the balanced budget amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 1739.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No. 1739 to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on amendment No. 1734.